JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. v. REPUBLIC MORTGAGE INSURANCE COMPANY
Filing
78
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 11/30/12. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Civil No. 10-6141
Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
REPUBLIC MORTGAGE INSURANCE
COMPANY and REPUBLIC
MORTGAGE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendants.
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
In this insurance dispute, Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”)
alleges that Defendants Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic
Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (collectively, “RMIC”)
improperly rescinded more than 175 insurance policies. Chase’s Second Amended
Complaint (“the Complaint”) discusses some policies and gestures at others, which
it lists in its Revised Exhibit A. Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). They also move for a more
definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). There was no
oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). As explained below, the Court will decide
both motions as they pertain to the policies identified in the Complaint. With
respect to these policies, it will GRANT the motion to dismiss IN PART and
DENY it IN PART, and it will DENY the motion for a more definite statement.
With respect to the policies listed in Chase’s Revised Exhibit A, the Court will
RESERVE judgment on both motions.
As the Court has already addressed the history of this litigation, see ECF No.
76, it will only highlight issues pertinent to the instant motion. Chase is a national
banking association that makes mortgage loans. From 2001 to 2005, RMIC
insured Chase’s mortgage loans. When RMIC agreed to insure a loan, it provided
Chase with a Certificate evidencing coverage. Chase alleges that RMIC
improperly rescinded a terrific number of Certificates. The Certificates can be
divided into two groups. The first group is composed of eight Certificates that are
all discussed in the body of the Complaint. The second group (“the Additional
Certificates”) is composed of more than 175 Certificates, which are generally
referenced in the Complaint but identified only in Chase’s Revised Exhibit A.
ECF No. 67-1.
First, the Court will address the eight Certificates referenced in the body of
the Complaint. After it filed the instant motion, Chase withdrew all claims with
respect to Certificates 0618053505 and 0726955654. ECF Nos. 70, 71. With
respect to the remaining six Certificates (“the Remaining Certificates” 1 ), Chase
alleges breach of contract, bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and
improper denial of claim (under Colorado and Louisiana law). Chase also seeks a
declaratory judgment interpreting contract provisions implicated in the rescissions.
As an initial matter, Chase does not and cannot dispute that it has failed to state
negligence claims with respect to Certificates 0704631012 (governed by the laws
of Arizona) and 0802331526 (governed by the laws of California). Hassan Decl.
¶¶ 7, 8, ECF No. 52-1; Everett Assocs., Inc. v. Trans. Ins. Co., 159 F. Supp. 2d
1196, 1204 (N.D. Cal. 2001); Miel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 912 P.2d
1333, 1340 (Ariz. App. Div. 1995). Since none of the Remaining Certificates are
governed by Colorado or Louisiana law, Hassan Decl. ¶¶ 7-14, Chase’s improper
denial claims under Colorado and Louisiana law do not survive the motion to
dismiss, either.
The Court does not agree that Chase’s allegations about the Remaining
Certificates are “so vague and ambiguous that no responsive pleading can be
framed.” Defs.’ Br. 16, ECF No. 52. For the reasons stated in Chase’s opposition
brief, the Complaint provides RMIC with sufficient notice of Chase’s claims. See
Pl.’s Br. 21-23, ECF No. 57. Contrary to RMIC’s position, a separate count for
each of the Remaining Certificates would not “promote clarity.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
10(b). Because Chase’s pleading is sufficiently detailed, a more definite statement
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) is unnecessary. Finally, while the
Court is skeptical about the propriety of declaratory relief given that the rescissions
appear to be fact-specific, it will nevertheless deny the motion to dismiss the
declaratory count at this time. The Court will revisit declaratory relief, if
necessary, after the parties have conducted expedited discovery.
With respect to the Additional Securities, the Court has proposed, and the
parties have agreed, that the Court will reserve judgment on the motion to dismiss
and the motion for a more definite statement. This reservation will not prejudice
1
The Remaining Certificates bear numbers 0631755015, 0606753004, 0632155014,
0704631012, 0715053047 and 0802331526.
2
claims related to the Additional Securities. It will, however, allow the parties and
the Court to focus their energies on a manageable subset of the 175-plus contested
Certificates. This subset will include the six Remaining Certificates and no more
than six Certificates of RMIC’s choosing. The parties will conduct expedited
discovery on this limited subset. After that, the Court will entertain any motions
and, if necessary, schedule a series of trials. Subsequently, the Court will meet
with the parties to discuss how it can effectively and expeditiously resolve the
remaining claims.
With respect to the Remaining Certificates, RMIC’s motion to dismiss is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court will dismiss with prejudice
(1) the negligence claims regarding Certificates 0704631012 and 0802331526; and
(2) all of the improper denial claims. RMIC’s motion for a more definite statement
is DENIED. With respect to the Additional Certificates, the parties have agreed
that the Court will RESERVE judgment on both motions. An appropriate order
follows.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Dated: November 30, 2012
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?